LeMond III

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Maybe also the direct assault which Armstrong made on his business and reputation, which as we can see in this thread, has had lasting and lingering effects.

Just to clarify this: you may recall that back then in North America with the exception of cyclists (who were few) and people with ties to Europe (and by extension European cycling) there was a good ten year gap in any public awareness of LeMond to Armstrong. Since almost everyone posting recently on this thread admits to predating the 1999 Tour win, it seems hard to maintain that this discussion is strictly an effect of after the fact smear tactics.

People seem to be overlooking that a lot of those taking LeMond to task used to support him. After Armstrong's downfall, LeMond's hypocrisy has turned many people away from him.[/quote]

Yes, but I found him (LeMond) dubious--or at least distasteful--from the start. And, you forgot to mention that Floyd should and did know better--and effectively changed what?

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: Re:

Yes, but I found him (LeMond) dubious--or at least distastefu--from the start. And, you forgot to mention that Floyd should and did know better--and effectively changed what?

Floyd is not too happy with the way things turned out. He wishes he would have never said a word. Nothing has changed in cycling, USADA used his information to strengthen and burnish a corrupt system, and some people he really disrespects, like Tygart, have come out smelling like roses.

 

[aphronesis]

Pretty much. So you can't burn the system with the one you still believe in. You know that quote.

But if vengeance is your thing...

Back to Greg, the stars and stripes?

 

[gooner]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

Lol.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Not sure why you’re trying to make this about me. The facts are as they stand. LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

It isn't about you, but you are trying to make a case, therefore it is about the case you are making.

But enough of this. I'm out of here. Seems I've touched a few sensitive nerves.

Stick around, you're a good poster.

If one wasn't aware of bike racing the tactics used by LeMond are fairly deplorable. Almost on par with Armstrong, both were attempting to assert business dominance.

The question remaining between the two is the doping aspect...

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

 

[gooner]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

Are you denying your previous position?

What made you change your mind?

That's a question you never answered.

The revisionist brigade hasn't just been with Lemond but also Betsy and others. Very interesting indeed.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

Ar you denyin your previous position?

What mad you change your mind?

That's a question you never answered.

Gooner, this is the LeMond thread. Let's talk discuss LeMond and his doping.

If you wish to discuss Betsy, please start a thread on your own. You're welcome to do it. No one would stop you

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

LeMond as it showed even in bike racing did whatever it took to win, 1986 being the classic example. It’s very straightforward set of facts. Deflecting across to myself doesn’t detract from LeMond’s behaviour when desperate.

Period.

My main problem with Lemond was that he didn't do whatever it took to win. Can you imagine other riders in his place actually listening to team orders in '85 and holding back? Can you imagine Hinault doing the same?

Lemond's lack of ruthlessness cost him at least one Tour. Likely 2 others.

 

[Maxiton]

Re: Re:

Yes, but I found him (LeMond) dubious--or at least distastefu--from the start. And, you forgot to mention that Floyd should and did know better--and effectively changed what?

Floyd is not too happy with the way things turned out. He wishes he would have never said a word. Nothing has changed in cycling, USADA used his information to strengthen and burnish a corrupt system, and some people he really disrespects, like Tygart, have come out smelling like roses.

Yeah, but Floyd had to make himself whole. With a screwing of that magnitude by all concerned you can't just roll over and silently take it, which is what normally happens in cycling. Is Floyd aware that his sample might have been tampered with at the behest of Verdruggem (and possibly LA) in their efforts to lower the asking price of the Tour and/or punish ASO for not selling?

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

He recorded calls. Despite you consistently calling it illegal, you have failed to show how it was illegal with any specifics on the particular states involved.

Ethically questionable and lame? Sure. Illegal? Please outline that in detail with the laws in each state at hand. Thanks.

 

[blutto]

Re: LeMond

I certainly admit to this argument that the iron shots halfway through the '89 Giro sound fishy, in turn with Greg's turnaround in form, but mostly in light of what we know now about EPO. If Lemond is the doping genius some think he was, then I doubt he would be so up front about this.

Of course, it fits with the guy's relative naivety that there could have been more than mere B12 in the shot, not that a single injection of Edgar AKA the Raven makes for much of a difference.

We also have to consider that in 89 getting a shot of vitamins was normal in a GT, thesedays, for obvious reasons and the fact it's outlawed by the UCI, it sounds worse than it would have been then.

I'd just like to add, to further this discussion, that I have nothing further to add.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....ah those ubiquitous B12 shots...here are a couple of things you may want to consider....

Should We Ban Vitamin B12?

So, with Roger Clemens stating that the only thing he has injected into his body is vitamin B12 (with lidocaine), I wondered if there are any performance-enhancing benefits from using the substance. And if there are, should we seek a ban (although, I think it would be nearly impossible to police)?

Once again, we have a substance that players are taking that appears to do nothing for healthy individuals. First, from the NY Times article:


In a telephone interview Thursday, Dr. Jerome Groopman, a hematologist and professor at Harvard Medical School, described lidocaine as a common local anesthetic whose injectable form would probably require a prescription. Groopman said that vitamin B12, which does not require a prescription, is administered to patients with a serious deficiency of the vitamin, usually the elderly, and that its value as an energy enhancer was “an urban legend.”

“For someone like Roger Clemens, who certainly looks robust, the likelihood that he would be deficient in vitamin B12 is a stretch,” Groopman said, noting that he had not seen Clemens’s medical records. “It would have no physiological effect. It would only have a placebo effect.”

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2008/01/should-we-ban-vitamin-b12/

...so why the ubiquity of B12 if it doesn't seem to do much ?....well it was in the day seen as a masking agent ( if you do a quick Google search you will see it is still seen as part of an effective way to cheat drug tests )...urban myth, maybe, but that was one of the reasons for its use ( read, people thought it would work )....

....but there is another use for B12 shots that some may find interesting....

EPO causes the blood to thicken, so I was given iron, vitamin E, folic acid, selenium, vitamin C, B1, B2, B6 and B12 to counteract the possibilities of it clotting.
[/quote

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-1158422/Dwain-Chambers-Masking-agent-visible-tester-knocked.html

...as for the iron shots....was seen in the old days as a masking agent for steroids though that use may well be an urban legend .....but certainly not a quick pick me up as LeMond claimed but definitely required to get the most benefit from the use of EPO....and just to really complicate things: severe iron deficiency is not that common and one of the causes for it to arise is steroid use.....and as for Greg being upfront about it ? he could have just as easily been Greg being ADHD about it...

Cheers

 

[aphronesis]

Didn't you [Max] quote Heidegger once? Making "whole" isn't likely to happen anyway, and pursuing it via those channels--while accessible and maybe gratifying--was never going to come close.

And I'm not saying this with hindsight.

If the govt. gives him a payout then that's an ontic, not an ontological shift. Maybe the same in today's economies and ecologies.

 

[gooner]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

Ar you denyin your previous position?

What mad you change your mind?

That's a question you never answered.

Gooner, this is the LeMond thread. Let's talk discuss LeMond and his doping.

If you wish to discuss Betsy, please start a thread on your own. You're welcome to do it. No one would stop you

Sorry now hog, but you brought in the recording of the conversation. Expect your previous stance and flip flopping on this to be pointed out. That's fair game in the discussion.

I will ask again.

Why have you come full circle on this issue with Lemond?

 

[DamianoMachiavelli]

Re: LeMond

Something to consider: Iron supplementation was seen as a necessary component of EPO use during EPO's early use as a PED.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

He recorded calls. Despite you consistently calling it illegal, you have failed to show how it was illegal with any specifics on the particular states involved.

Ethically questionable and lame? Sure. Illegal? Please outline that in detail with the laws in each state at hand. Thanks.

It’s an interesting question, however it comes unstuck when you consider misrepresentation. When the other party asks you; ‘are you recording this call’ and you answer ‘no’, then proceed to release the recording onto the internet, then, yes, it is unlawful regardless of what state the parties reside.

 

[Maxiton]

Re:

Didn't you [Max] quote Heidegger once?

I may have quoted Nietzsche a time or two, but not Heidegger, not on purpose, anyway.

Making "whole" isn't likely to happen anyway, and pursuing it via those channels--while accessible and maybe gratifying--was never going to come close.[/b]

And I'm not saying this with hindsight.

If the govt. gives him a payout then that's an ontic, not an ontological shift. Maybe the same in today's economies and ecologies.

Right, you may not be saying it in hindsight, but Floyd might be. I think he had high hopes of being made whole by his confession, in some part because of the confession itself, but in larger part because of the destruction it would wreak. I think he might have thought it would destroy pro cycling, or at least the UCI. He had to settle for Armstrong, helped in no small part by Armstrong himself.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is certainly is very adept at the secrecy aspects, if his recording of phone conversations is anything to go by. He also had no issues in lying to procure what he needed. Breaking the law didn't appear to concern him either. Not a stretch to think he would conduct himself in the same manner when it came to doping.

You have flip-flopped on this issue.

You were caught out on this when a previous post was to show you having a go at Lance fans for saying the exact same thing you said above.

Again, it's not about me.

Or are you suggesting LeMond didn't illegally record calls? Or refused to testify at the CAS hearing?

He recorded calls. Despite you consistently calling it illegal, you have failed to show how it was illegal with any specifics on the particular states involved.

Ethically questionable and lame? Sure. Illegal? Please outline that in detail with the laws in each state at hand. Thanks.

It’s an interesting question, however it comes unstuck when you consider misrepresentation. When the other party asks you; ‘are you recording this call’ and you answer ‘no’, then proceed to release the recording onto the internet, then, yes, it is unlawful regardless of what state the parties reside.

Federal law permits recording if you are party to the call. Most states (including Minnesota) follow this though there are some exceptions.

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/recording-phone-calls-and-conversations

Federal law permits recording telephone calls and in-person conversations with the consent of at least one of the parties. See 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(d). This is called a "one-party consent" law. Under a one-party consent law, you can record a phone call or conversation so long as you are a party to the conversation.

Now I don't know where the participants were located. Do you? You would need to know this to call it "illegal". By and large, it is not "illegal".

I don't see any conditions around whether you misrepresent that you're recording the call. If you have them, I would be interested to see them and happily drop the line of discussion and concede you're correct.

 

[aphronesis]

Re: Re:

Didn't you [Max] quote Heidegger once?

I may have quoted Nietzsche a time or two, but not Heidegger, not on purpose, anyway.

Making "whole" isn't likely to happen anyway, and pursuing it via those channels--while accessible and maybe gratifying--was never going to come close.[/b]

And I'm not saying this with hindsight.

If the govt. gives him a payout then that's an ontic, not an ontological shift. Maybe the same in today's economies and ecologies.

Right, you may not be saying it in hindsight, but Floyd might be. I think he had high hopes of being made whole by his confession, in some part because of the confession itself, but in larger part because of the destruction it would wreak. I think he might have thought it would destroy pro cycling, or at least the UCI. He had to settle for Armstrong, helped in no small part by Armstrong himself.

Right. I didn't really think you had. But it seemed plausible. Hindsight was a throwaway jibe elsewhere.

Floyd may have thought so--I won't speak for him--but in real time that was never going to happen. Things occur and develop on different temporalities.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is a resident of California whereby it is illegal to record calls without two party consent.

Mcilvain is also a California resident, so its doubly illegal

Nevertheless, to my earlier point, its largely irreverent considering he lied and misrepresented the fact that he recorded the call.

Summary of statute(s):

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings. In-person conversations: All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Additionally, California’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” law prohibits trespassing with the intent of capturing photographic images or sound recordings of people in “personal or familial activity.” Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8. Committing an assault or falsely imprisoning subjects of a photo or sound recording can also lead to violations of the statute. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8(c). Similarly, the state’s vehicle code was recently amended to include penalties for anyone who interferes with the driver of a vehicle, follows too closely or drives recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impressions of another person for a commercial purpose.” Cal. Veh. Code § 40008.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/california

 

[kwikki]

We're the calls placed in California? We're they received in California?

If you don't know you have no basis for claiming they were illegal.

Was Lemond ever charged? If not why not? Why didn't the poor 'single mother' press charges?

Lots of questions for you to answer. You can start with the first.

 

[red_flanders]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is a resident of California whereby it is illegal to record calls without two party consent.

Mcilvain is also a California resident, so its doubly illegal

Nevertheless, to my earlier point, its largely irreverent considering he lied and misrepresented the fact that he recorded the call.

Summary of statute(s):

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings. In-person conversations: All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Additionally, California’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” law prohibits trespassing with the intent of capturing photographic images or sound recordings of people in “personal or familial activity.” Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8. Committing an assault or falsely imprisoning subjects of a photo or sound recording can also lead to violations of the statute. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8(c). Similarly, the state’s vehicle code was recently amended to include penalties for anyone who interferes with the driver of a vehicle, follows too closely or drives recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impressions of another person for a commercial purpose.” Cal. Veh. Code § 40008.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/california

Lemond is a resident of Minnesota.

That said, I stand corrected. We can assume Mcilvain was in California.

 

[thehog]

Re: LeMond

LeMond is a resident of California whereby it is illegal to record calls without two party consent.

Mcilvain is also a California resident, so its doubly illegal

Nevertheless, to my earlier point, its largely irreverent considering he lied and misrepresented the fact that he recorded the call.

Summary of statute(s):

In California, all parties to any confidential conversation must give their consent to be recorded. This applies whether the recording is done face-to-face or intercepted through some electronic communication such as a cell phone call or series of e-mail or text messages. Both civil and criminal penalties are available to victims of illegal recordings. Further, the state’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” legislation sets fines for, among other things, trespassing on private property with the intent of capturing photos. The state’s vehicle code similarly penalizes those who interfere with drivers of vehicles in pursuit of images or sound recordings. In-person conversations: All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded. Cal. Penal Code § 632(c). Additionally, California’s so-called “anti-paparazzi” law prohibits trespassing with the intent of capturing photographic images or sound recordings of people in “personal or familial activity.” Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8. Committing an assault or falsely imprisoning subjects of a photo or sound recording can also lead to violations of the statute. Cal. Civil Code § 1708.8(c). Similarly, the state’s vehicle code was recently amended to include penalties for anyone who interferes with the driver of a vehicle, follows too closely or drives recklessly “with the intent to capture any type of visual image, sound recording, or other physical impressions of another person for a commercial purpose.” Cal. Veh. Code § 40008.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/california

Lemond is a resident of Minnesota.

That said, I stand corrected. We can assume Mcilvain was in California.

Mcilvain lives in San Clemente, CA.

Minnesota is also illegal to the following respects of disclosure of the recordings, (nasty business);

Minnesota

Disclosing recordings: A person may not disclose or use the contents of any intercepted communication if that person either knows or has reason to know it was obtained in violation of the state’s wiretapping laws. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02.

Criminal penalties: Unlawful recordings, or disclosure of their contents when there is reason to know the information was obtained illegally, carry maximum penalties of imprisonment for five years and fines of $20,000. Minn. Stat. § 626A.02. Violation of the state’s hidden camera law is a felony punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Minn. Stat. § 609.746.

http://www.rcfp.org/reporters-recording-guide/state-state-guide/minnesota

 

[kwikki]

It doesn't matter where she lives. Do you know where the calls were placed and received?

 

[kwikki]

@the hog

Here we go. I've done your job for you and found out.

Curiously enough you are pedalling the line used by Armstrong's lawyer, Mark Fabiani.

Mark Fabiani, a member of Armstrong's legal team, said, "Greg LeMond's illegal tape is the stalest of all the stale news to emerge from this inquiry so far: Ms. McIlvain disavowed this during her 2005 sworn deposition, and Mr. LeMond violated California law when he made the tape in yet another of his pathetic attempts to settle old cycling grudges."

It's up to you, but personally I wouldn't want to find myself pushing Fabiani line.

On purported illegality of taping:

McIlvain was in California during the conversation with LeMond. California law requires consent by both parties of a recording. Legal expert Laurie Levenson said in federal cases, however, taped conversations can be used as evidence as long as one of the parties — LeMond in this case — is aware of the taping.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/15/sports/la-sp-lance-armstrong-20100916